Pages

Monday, January 19, 2015

PERMANENT DAMAGE:

One frequently
recurring theme in Family Court is the parents’ right to a relationship with their
children. When a breakup was not
amicable and there are ongoing disputes over parenting time, custody, vacations
or living arrangements, the children of course, suffer. In the course of the breakup, depending on
how long it takes and how much fighting takes place in front of the children,
it is easy to create lifelong damage.

Toxicity

Creating damage is
the natural consequence of exposure to something toxic. When children are exposed to their parents
acting in a toxic manner, a variety of outcomes can ensue, none of them good. For example, it is difficult for many parents
to wait until the kids are in school to have their arguments. In a divorce, it is not unusual during the
divorce for the entire family to (be forced to) be together after school,
during dinnertime, evenings and weekends, until the parents actually
separate. During the divorce process,
just being in the same house together is unpleasant, tense, weird, especially
for the children (depending on their ages).
Hearing loud arguments, even from the next room, can be scary. Living in
a cold, loveless household is lonely.
Having one parent threatening the other, seeing a parent crying, is
worse. It makes a child feel unsafe,
terrified, and ultimately, angry. If
there is domestic violence, the results are much worse when children are home
and witness a physical assault or its aftermath.

The Courts usually
will not allow the perpetrator of domestic violence to remain in the home with
the victim and the children. When children
witness verbal or physical violence, it pushes the child away from the parent
who is violent or emotionally abusive.
It may create in the child a pseudo-parentified role if that child
becomes the victim’s comforter and protector.
Many times, an abused parent will confide inappropriately to a child who
is ill-equipped emotionally or in maturity to be a parent to their own
parent. Sometimes a parent need not say
anything to the child for the child to become estranged from the other
parent. It is often that parent who does
the job all by themselves by his/her actions.
A parent may become estranged from their child for other reasons too. For example, it can be from apathy, not
showing up for visitations, not acting warm or loving to the child, not attending
to the child’s emotional needs, breaking promises, chronically disappointing
their child, etc. A child can build a
protective exterior to avoid further disappointment, hurt and emotional
pain. That protective exterior can be a
wedge that is driven between child and parent.
The effects can last forever.

Identification with
the Agressor and other Roles:

Children have
difficulty remaining totally neutral, even when they might try. It is human
nature to take sides, to find someone to blame.
Sometimes a child may identify with the (perceived) victim in a
protective way. Other times, the child
may take on the characteristics of the aggressive and abusive parent (if that
is the issue in that family) and begin to act in an aggressive and abusive way
to a parent, the designated target in that family. That child, who over-identifies with the
aggressor parent, says the same horrible things to the target parent as the
abusive parent. It is almost like the Stockholm
Syndrome where prisoners of war identify with their captors. Here, it may seem safer for the child to
become like the aggressor parent than to be aligned with the victim
parent. It is like the child wants to be
on the winning team. He/she takes in all of the anger and hostility directed by
one parent to the other, and becomes another abuser in the household. I have
seen this happen and it is tragic to see.

Accordingly, we
can see a variety of outcomes in the dissolving, dysfunctional family. Here is an overview of some possible
outcomes: First, we talked about a child
who becomes their parent’s parent, acquiring the role of therapist, comforter,
protector. As this child becomes overly
identified with the weaker (underdog) parent, that child can easily internalize
that parent’s pain, rejection, feelings of abandonment, victim-hood. That parent may not be able to shield the
child from their feelings, and becomes comfortable sharing adult information
with their child. Their child becomes
more of a parental peer then a child.
The child becomes their parent’s ally and confidant. This is very inappropriate, dysfunctional and
creates damage in the child’s emotional makeup.
As the child becomes more and more enmeshed with the victim-parent, it
creates more hostility against the perceived aggressor parent. It is easy to
see how this can elicit further aggressive behavior (verbal or physical) and resentment
from that parent against the weaker parent and their child ally.

In another
scenario, a child may be frankly traumatized by witnessing a violent parent
acting out against the other, perhaps repeatedly over time. The bully-parent, stereotypically controlling,
intimidating and perhaps explosive and frequently using corporal punishment, teaches
their child to shrink away when they are present, causes mistrust, anxiety and sometimes
terror. That child may feel protective
of their other (perceived victim) parent, but they have their own direct experiences
including being hit or verbally abused by that parent. That child can learn to hate the abusive
parent without any help from the other parent.
If one parent works on poisoning a child against another parent, we
refer to it as alienation. If a parent
becomes distanced from their child because of their own actions (or inactions),
we refer to that phenomenon as estrangement. In cases of parents who
expose their child to the details of their adult issues, violence, free
displays of emotionality and anger, depression and victim-hood, anger, abuse,
failures to cope, etc, those parents are meeting their own needs at the expense
of their child. It is selfish, perhaps
narcissistic behavior. For whatever the justification,
the child gets exposed to toxicity. Regardless
of who is inflicting it, the child gets damaged by exposure to parental
victimizing or victimhood, arrogance or aggression, depression, passivity, bad-mouthing
the other parent, hearing about a parent’s feelings of abandonment/devastation/infidelity,
or by being abused or neglected directly by a parent (sometimes while the other
parent stands by helplessly and allows it to occur). In both cases, the parental behavior is
selfish, self- serving, manipulative, narcissistic and dysfunctional. It all causes damage to children.

Family Systems of
Dysfunction:

We often see that
the family system in which this dysfunction occurs is a finely tuned system of
reciprocity, reactivity and reinforcement of negative behavior. For every perceived aggressive act (or act of
abandonment) there is a reaction in kind.
For the weaker parent who is apparently acted against, the revenge often
will take the form of passively (or passive-aggressively) going to the child, exacting
punishment and power that way. Having
the child hate the other parent even more, can be a method of revenge, using
the manipulated child as the only effective weapon available against an apparently
more powerful aggressor parent. In a more subtle sense, many seemingly
rational parents, while undergoing a divorce, will secretly feel some sort of inner satisfaction
when they hear their child speaking badly of the other parent. The response of the parent to hearing that,
even via nonverbal responses such as facial expression, can signal to the child
that it is ok to speak badly of the other parent. That is not ok. It causes damage to children.

Even when the aggressor parent is a truly terrible person, a bully
against the other parent, a lousy spouse, a jerk, etc., that parent still may
be a good parent. It sometimes happens, perhaps in a minority of cases, but it
should be individually assessed. On the
other hand, a parent with a propensity to violence or substance abuse, may be an ongoing risk, in any event. Who makes the
determination about that parent’s degree of risk of violence, or risk of
relapse into substance abuse? It definitely should
not be the other parent who makes that determination for the reasons outlined
above. When someone has a genuine
history, it is for the Courts to determine, perhaps with the assistance of
forensic evaluations and substance abuse monitoring, as to the degree of current
risk, if any, to the child. Maybe it
would actually be good for the child if that parent remained (or became)
involved in their child’s life, regardless of events years ago. That is
individually and professionally assessed. Obviously if a
child were physically assaulted or sexually abused by the non-residential
parent, (hopefully) no one is going to force that child to spend time with that
parent (nor should they). But imagine the horrible damage that is inflicted by a parent making
false allegations of sexual abuse against the other parent.

Malicious Attempts
at Alienation:

In a case of a parent (who has primary residential custody of the
child), working to alienate a child against the other parent, a court could
(and has) changed custody from the alienating parent to the other parent
previously being alienated. That,
coupled with the initiation of mandatory supervised parenting time for the
alienating parent can be a remedy in a severe case of intentional alienation. There are parents who, purely out of hatred
for their former mate, believe that they are justified in alienating their
child from the other parent, telling the child horrible untrue things. That is a form of child abuse, and the Courts
have and will change custody from one parent to the other, if it deems such a
change to be necessary and appropriate.
This scenario seems a bit obvious, that a court will take a child out of
the home of an alienating parent and place that child with the alienated
parent. That is a last ditch effort to
prevent a permanent alienation. But it
is often too late. Sometimes bad
behavior (by a residential parent) goes unpunished because it cannot be. The damage is too severe, the alienation too
ingrained, to reverse it. Forcing the
child into the house of the other parent would then be traumatic, causing
further damage in the child, even though it was caused by the residential
parent; A case of bad behavior being
rewarded because of no consequences to that parent is still a reward.

Forcing a
Relationship or Offering Interventions:

The Courts generally want an estranged parent to get re-involved in
their child’s life, but it is not so easy.
Often, the court (and a different judge) gets the case long after damage
is done, after years of estrangement or alienation. The child is now older, already aligned with
a particular parent, having internalized all of the available negative beliefs
about the other parent. Perhaps the
Court issues an order to resume visitation.
What if the child refuses to go?
What if the child would have to be literally dragged into a car to go to
the other parent, forced, or threatened with the loss of their cell phone, etc.? That
happens more than most people realize.
Damage is already done, and it continues. How do
you repair that? By threatening punishment if the child doesn’t go? There are single parents who try to get their
child into their car to take them to the other parent’s house, under threat of
being found to be in contempt of court, and they still cannot do it. Or maybe they can do it, but they say they
cannot (perhaps passive-aggressive behavior?).
The Court is left with its own frustration, not wanting to punish an
otherwise fit parent, but impatient that the estranged parent is without
parenting time. The Judge feels ignored as well. That is not ok.

Sometimes a Court will send a child for reunification therapy with
a mental health professional. There,
visits take place in a therapist’s office or nearby pizza shop, and therapeutic
interventions may be offered to estranged parent and child. Sometimes this works. It can be an opportunity for a child to air
their grievances to the estranged parent and for a therapist to handle the
responses, manage the feelings and perceptions, and to facilitate a
dialog. It is a chance for the child to
see that the estranged parent may not be so bad after all. This has to be attempted and it often is. Reunification or re-introduction therapy can
be effective and should be attempted if possible, depending on the
circumstances. Sometimes a family is
referred to a program such as the Family Bridges Program, or something similar, in cases of severe
parental alienation. That is almost like
a re-programming intervention to un-do the effects of severe alienation. The fact remains, however, that after a
certain point, there may be irreversible damage, a point of no return from the
damage done to a parent-child relationship.
No matter what is attempted, it fails, maybe gets sabotaged, maybe goes
too slowly. Ultimately, the passage of
time puts the finishing touches on a damaged parent-child relationship. It’s like holding the ball in the final
moments of the game, waiting out the clock.
Passively sabotaging the reunification process, missing appointments
(e.g. “Joey has a soccer game on Tuesday and can’t make the appointment”; or: “Joey
wasn’t feeling well…:”.), showing no interest in the child having a
relationship with their other parent, continuing to make disparaging remarks
about the other parent, makes it more difficult (if not impossible) to facilitate
a new parent-child relationship. Eventually, the child becomes 18 and the
Courts can’t do anything further. Game
over.

Glazing-Over and the
Reformulation of History:

The Judge may have a gut feeling that the residential parent caused
or contributed to the alienation but there is no solid proof of this. The residential parent blames the
non-residential parent. The child has no
interest in spending time with that parent.
After a while, even legitimate stories about past abuse, neglect,
domestic violence, emotional abuse, etc., however, start to ring hollow, the Judge may
glaze over, listening to old accusations and new denials and counter-accusations, and the Court slams
the residential parent for not cooperating, for not trying to get the child
to attend visitations with the estranged parent, etc. My perception is that in some cases, even in
the cases with significant domestic violence histories, eventually (over years)
the victim begins to be looked at as being responsible (or partially so) for
the child not having a relationship with their other parent, due to perceived malice. After years go by leaving the bruises and
the bad times in the past, the Court is reluctant to permanently write off a
parent for their past deeds, especially when that parent still has parental
rights. Currently, that parent is
banging on the courthouse doors, demanding parenting time, crying about their
love for their child (which may be 100% genuine). The only one we hear saying “no” is the
previously abused parent! If the
children are heard, and they say no, the Court may still criticize the
residential parent, saying that the children should not be running the show. So the parent who in the past may have
actually been the true victim of domestic violence is now being criticized by
the court for apparently not cooperating enough with a new plan to reinstate
parenting time with their former abuser. That residential parent may be chronically traumatized, to this
day. So that parent starts to feel like they
are being re-traumatized, abused again—this time by the Court. And to make matters worse, the old domestic
violence may now be looked at as having been blown out of proportion or “concocted”
by the residential parent. Or maybe that
it is not relevant to the current time and to the parent’s desire to be in their
child’s life. Unfair maybe to the victim,
but it happens. Things become blurry with the passage of time. At some point, in some cases, the Court may see
the history of the case differently (especially if a new judge gets appointed
to the case), saying that it wasn’t just one parent’s fault (it usually isn’t),
and that the residential parent may be
accountable for any further failure to get the visitations back on track (e.g.: “I believe that things happened by the hands
of both parties against the other…”) The
court, in its own frustration, wants it fixed, wants the estranged parent back
in the child’s life now, no matter what (the “enough is enough” doctrine). And the clock is still running, and someone
is holding the ball, waiting out the clock until end of game. Who is holding the ball? The victim? Is that victim purposely holding
the ball or is he/she just plain traumatized (chronic post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD)?). Who really
loses? Maybe the non-residential parent
caused this 100 percent, or is mostly responsible for it in reality, but the
bottom line, is that the child lost a parent, and not through death. It is a big dilemma for any Judge. So there is no closure. No resolution. It just hangs there like a cloud, through the
rest of the child’s life. Somehow that
seems very unfair and sad.

Further Realities, Disclaimers and Reflections:

Someone who sexually molested their child or was physically abusive to that child is a special case that should be individually assessed via the Court. In other cases, the court should take into account the effects of spousal abuse on a residential parent and that person’s ability to foster a relationship between their child and their abuser. It may be impossible for some. Impossible to comply is different from refuses to comply. Therapeutic interventions are essential. Or perhaps should have been put into place years ago when they would have been more effective. The Court should not underestimate the traumatic effects of spousal abuse years ago to the current time. Chronic PTSD can last forever if not treated. How can a residential parent with chronic PTSD foster a relationship between their child and the person who abused them? Often, the non-residential parent goes to court against their previous victim of spousal abuse, and attempts to play the victim role to the Judge, not taking responsibility for how they all got to this point. It is all too easy for an abuser to blame the victim. Taking that victim to court, accusing that parent of alienation, is just a continuation of the abuse that has been going on throughout the years. The bottom line is that everyone should be accountable and be expected to take responsibility for their actions, especially involving children. If a parent has unclean hands, they should not be in a very strong position to ask the court to punish the other parent for an estrangement that this parent brought on him/herself by his/her own actions. Sometimes you simply reap what you sow.

Please note, this blog is for information purposes only. It is not legal or psychological advice and it does not create an attorney/client or psychologist/patient relationship. If you have a question about a specific matter you should seek out an attorney or mental health expert to assist you.